PTB14 Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 ---clicked--- Violence is never a real solution to a political crisis. Politics, by its nature, is a system that sees much change in response to various factors from economic performance to public approval. When violence is employed to solve a political crisis, politics and human nature combine to sow seeds of revenge and future discord despite what change may come. This cycle of violence continues to ravage generations and hurts both sides of a conflict because victories are not always permanent and the vanquished may rise again. For this reason, violence doesn't solve a political crisis and should be avoided. However there are some scenarios in which violence is a solution to political strife. Consider a nation where an armed minority uses violent means to bring their political views into the mainstream and force it upon the majority. In this instance where violence was initiated by the minority, leaving no room for peaceful negotiation, a violent response is necessary to protect the majority, their rights and their political views. Peaceful responses do not best serve the majority here, because the minority agenda moves forward mainly by violence. Therefore, violence is a real solution only when it protects the interests of the majority and is used in response to violence. Violence against a political minority is not justified until that minority uses it first. And violence against a political majority is ill-advised because the power is removed from the hands of the people and the bitter cycle of violence is inevitable. Violence is rarely a justifiable solution to a political crisis and when it is, it hinges upon the size and aggression of the dissidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacemaker Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -Clicked- The law offers greater protection to the wealthy than to the poor. Laws function to protect the rights of individuals by imposing restrictions on the actions of others. Ideally, they are meant to ensure equality with reagrds to safety and liberty for all citizens. There are several forms of laws such as property law, family law, corporate law, criminal law etc. Additionally, such laws can function at various different levels including municipal, provincial, national and international. Laws tend to be created by keeping the viewpoints of the majority in mind and their goal is to treat all citizens as being equal. However, many beleive that law tends to offer greater protection for the wealthy in comparison to the poor. For example, laws in several nations promote greater security and protection for the wealthy including successful entrepreneurs, celebrities, famous athletes and politicians. In 2009, the G20 summit was held in Toronto where political leaders from the top nations around the world gathered to discuss issues such as global economics and the recent recession. The police force from the City of Toronto and the neighbouring cities and towns was called on the job to help ensure the safety and protection of these high class and wealthy politicians. On the other hand, other events held in the City of Toronto such the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) which is an annual public event that members of society can attend by paying fee for an entrance ticket do not see this form of a police presence and the extensive use of the legal system to ensure protection of those in attendance. This example illustrates how the legal system and the police force was used to ensure greater protection for the wealthy politicians attendiing the G20 summit whereas, other events where the general public (not necessarily the wealthy) are likely to attend, this form of use of the legal system and the police force is not seen. In contrast, it is not always necessarily true that the law provides greater protection to the wealthy than to the poor. Laws fundamentally pose restrictions on the actions of individuals so that that rights and freedoms for all individuals of society can be protected. For example, traffic laws in Canada prohibit individuals to drive a vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol. This helps to ensure safety for the driver him/herself, passengers, other drivers on the road, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport vehicles. Such traffic laws apply equally to the wealthy and to the poor. Any driver is prohibited from being in control of a vehicle while being intoxicated regardless of how wealthy he/she is or how expensive their car is. All indiviuals are equally fined and punished if they break this law. Moreover, these laws help to promote protection for all other citizens including the wealthy who may also be driving on the roads in expensive cars as well as the poor who may be using other forms of transportation such as walking, bicycles and public transport. In conclusion, laws ar socially constructed rules and regulations that are designed for the benefit of the society as a whole. As such, they are supposed to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens. However, the law might be used to ensure greater safety and protection of the wealthy when compared to the poor. This is especially true in cases where a large group of wealthy individuals are likely to gather and there is a reason to suspect a threat to their safety. This was clearly seen in the example of events held in the City of Toronto where the legal system and the police force was used to ensure greater protection for the wealthy politicians attendiing an event such as the G20 summit whereas, other events in Toronto such as the Canadian National Exhibition where the general public (not necessarily the wealthy) are likely to attend, this form of use of the legal system and the police force is not seen. On the pother hand, laws do not necessarily promote greater protection of the wealthy and not the poor. This is especially true when laws imply equal restrictions on the actions of all individuals in society. For example, traffic laws in Canada prohibit individuals from driving a vehicle if they are under the influence of alcohol. In this situation, anyones’ lives and well-being can be potentially harmed by careless behaviour of a drunk driver. Thus, such laws apply equally to all citizens of society regardless of whether they are rich or poor and these laws are designed to ensure further safety and protection of all fellow citizens who have an equal right to share the roads regardless of their socioeconomic status. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliver Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you! (This essay was written before I started following TPR guidelines.. any comments would be appreciated!) Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies There has been much progress made in technology in the contemporary society. Communication is among one of the technologies that have drastically evolved in recent years. In the modern world, it has become much easier to get in contact with people in remote areas via online media such as E-mail, Skype and Facebook. With Facebook, for example, people can communicate with their friends to whom they have not talked for many years in a simple way: posting on their walls. People can also check how other people are doing via their status on facebook. People may leave messages such as "I am going to Blue Jays game tonight" so their friends or families can keep track of them. Though it seems that the communication in the modern society has become much simpler than in the past, it has also become complicated in its unique way. The privacy issues have become hot issues ever since the birth of Facebook. Because it provides easy access to personal information, abuse of such information has been made possible. Therefore, Facebook has implemented toughened up security system on personal information, which complicates connecting with other people a bit. In the modern onine modern technology, with which personal information can be easily accessible, the progress has complicated as much as it has simplified. On the other hand, progress in offline or non-online methods of communication has been largely more simplifying than complicating. Nowadays, with many people carrying their cell phones, it is possible to get hold of them anywhere any time. People can also get in contact with others overseas as well through affordable and quality international calls, fast international mailing and shipping. Unless they are under surveillance by a national secret service or they are talking in a large public area, their privacy is granted better with these offine methods. No one is going to able to overhear the conversation or open up the envelope to access their personal information. It still is possible to get hold of people with these methods. The progress in these offline communication services has simplifed contacting other people than complicating it. There has been much improvement in the field of communication both online and offline. Though they perform similiar functions, they possess different traits. Both the online and offline media enable people to contact others in a much simpler way compared to the past when people were relying on simple mails delivered via horse riders. To differentiate the two, the online media has complicated the communication in a unique way that personal information delivered through the media can be abused. The offline method, on the other hand, has not posed this problem. The matter of complication and simplification ultimately bogs down to the media type in the field of communication technologies. As depicted here, progress can complicate as much as it simplifies and the opposite can happen as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BehindTheWheel Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you again History is the record of humanity's wars. Describe a specific situation in which history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else. History attempts to investigate humanity through the study of past events. When looking through books and publications describing world history, the majority of facts are concentrated on battles and wars. However, historical publications cannot always provide insight into motives, they can only provide records of actions. Wars are resulting actions of countries struggling for dominance over limited resources that ensure human survival. Due to shortage of these resources, attaining them was possible only through means of war. Thus, historical records of wars describe the human drive towards attaining limited assets. One example of this is illustrated by the French and English war that lasted from the beginning of 18th century well into the 19th century. The two dominant European powers sought to defeat each other in order to gain more colonies throughout the world. These colonies would provide each country with various valuable but limited resources such as, land, foods, metals, and manpower. In this war the British Empire came out victorious, while France lost many of its colonies. This period of French-British history has resulted from the struggle between the two empires for resources, but in historical records these events were described in terms of war. However, there are instances where historical publications have focused on events that had nothing to do with wars. For instance, the 20th century has been marked with many great technological advances and discoveries that were shared throughout the world and improved the quality of many human lives. Alex Fleming has discovered penicillin, the first antibiotic, which has been documented by historians as a “discovery that changed the course of history”. After its’ discovery, penicillin was widely distributed and available throughout the world to cure diseases caused by bacterial agents. Since, there was no shortage of this drug no conflicts ensued to possess it. Consequently, the discovery of penicillin was marked in history as a scientific finding and not war. In order to determine when history should be the record of humanity’s wars and when it should be something else one should look at the availability of resources at a given point and time. Wars mark time points when humans struggle for resources that contribute to their survival. However, at times when a resource becomes widely available to everyone, historians can document events that contribute to their discovery and accessibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler! Prisoners should be granted the same rights as the other members of free society. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. Discuss what you think determines whether the rights of free society should be granted to persons in prison. Freedoms and rights in a democratic nation are vital for ensuring equality, safety and welfare of its citizens. When an individual violates the laws and rules of a country, they are susceptible to punishment and imprisonment. Many people argue that prisoners are humans like other members of free society, and consequently deserve many of the same rights. Rights that are absolutely necessary for survival should be granted to all individuals in a nation, whether they are in prison or in free society. For example, similar to members of free society who have access to health care, prisoners should also be entitled to care and physiological wellness. Historically, some of these fundamental rights have been violated. For instance, prisoners in Guatemala were subjected to experimental drugs against syphilis and other transmittable infections. The health of these prisoners was compromised, when the same action towards members of free society would be unacceptable. As a result, prisoners should be granted the same rights as other members of society in matters of health and personal survival needs. Although prisoners are entitled to some of the same rights as other members of society, there are instances when persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. While rights that influence the well-being of an individual should be protected both in prison and in free society, prisoners should not be entitled to the same level of freedom to transmit their knowledge and opinions to society. Prisoners should not be granted the right to publicly express their opinions that may be deemed unethical or negatively influential on members of society. In other words, they should not be able to interact with members of free society in order to avoid further transmission of negative feelings or ideas. For example, society should be protected from the prejudices and unethical ideas of the recently imprisoned ex-guard at the Nazi camps in Germany during World War II. As granting such rights would have a negative effect on society altogether, prisoners might justifiably not be entitled to them in prison. Most people agree that rights and freedoms exist by law to protect individuals of a nation. In some instances, prisoners should have the same rights as other members of free society, as in the case of needing health care for survival. These personal needs that do not have an external influence on other members of society should be protected and respected. However, rights that allow members of free society to interact with one another and express opinions and ideas openly should not be granted to prisoners. Such rights would possibly result in transmission of negative thoughts and ideas that may compromise the ethical integrity of society. As a result, personal rights that affect solely the individual without an external influence on other members of free society should be granted, while those that allow prisoners to interact openly with society might justifiably not be granted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 -clicked- Thank you again! The scientific pursuit of truth is flawed by economic and personal interests. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the scientific pursuit of truth is not flawed by economic and personal interests. Discuss what you think determines whether or not scientific truth is flawed by economic or personal interests. The world in the 20th and 21st centuries has experienced enormous scientific and technological advancements that allow society to function more effectively and accurately. The pursuit of scientific truth usually involves learning more about the ways in which society works and living systems interact with one another. Some interactions may be considered antagonistic, as in the case of pathological diseases, while others may be synergistic. Some scientific discoveries are intended to advance society but may be accompanied by economic and personal interests. For example, the pursuit of truth regarding how certain pathological organisms alter the physiology of humans is instrumental in fighting disease. Since the 1980s, the scientific society has struggled to combat HIV/AIDS and to find a cure to eliminate this burdensome disease. Since there is a significant portion of the world living with this disease, patents on a viable cure may be attractive and worth a significant sum of monetary value. Since the cure would be in the hands of few, it would be considerably valuable to members of society. Consequently, some scientists may pursue the goal of such a discovery by economic and personal interests. However, there are instances when the scientific pursuit of truth may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. Some scientific discoveries are accompanied by open access to information, as well as free dissemination of knowledge. Being in the hands of most members of society, such truth may not be as economically valuable, yet socially significant. As a result, scientific pursuit that aims to increase and expand the knowledge domain of society altogether may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. For instance, a discovery that elucidates previous knowledge and does not produce a tangible outcome that influences the lives of living organisms may not have significant value to non-scientific members of society. As a result, research into understanding the workings of our world that does not directly impact other members of society may not be flawed by economic and personal interests. In conclusion, some scientific research is accompanied by economic and personal interests, as in the case of development of novel therapeutic treatments for burdensome illnesses. Such knowledge and information may remain in the hands of few, rather than openly in the hands of society. Consequently, knowledge that directly influences the lives of living organisms is considered valuable by both the scientific and non-scientific members of society. Therefore the scientific pursuit of truth in such instances may be flawed by economic and personal interests. Conversely, research that aims to expand on previous knowledge in order to gain clear insight on the way in which nature operates may be accessible to all members of society. Such a discovery has no direct influence on the way in which humans live their lives and thus, does not possess significant monetary value. As a result, discoveries that have a direct impact on humans may be flawed by economic and personal interests, while information that is aimed at expanding the knowledge domain of society altogether may not be flawed by such interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 -clicked- forgot to click.. so I clicked twice and made it my home page lol Hey, This is my first essay. Took me exactly 25:44 minutes. Our Understanding of Human Events is always influenced by personal Bias. From the time animals learnt to think, there is always something known as the consciousness within them. This consciousness is the reason why humans are able to store and process lots of information and react to that information. This is the one skill that makes us more advanced then the organisms of the past. But naturally, with this ability to think and store information, comes bias in interpreting events in our every day life. Obviously not all the humans think alike. What makes each human different apart from the DNA code are the life skills that they are thought while they are growing. These values and morals have great impact on the interpretation of events. I remember at one time, I was visiting a third world nation. While I was on a public bus, a man came and sat down beside a woman. The expression on this woman's face was that of a deeply insulted person. She got up that very moment and started to find another spot. At first this was very strange to me, however, later I thought that this is because the man 's and the woman's values and morals are different. The story reminds us all that everyone's interpretation is based on our own understanding of values and morals. The woman thought that she was being harassed when the man came to sit beside her. The woman in my story eventually sat down at a seet beside another woman. She was keen on not sitting beside another man. Had this even happened in a western society, it would not have been considered so insulting to the woman. THis is because her values are much different then of those living in a conservative society of a third world nation. The values and morals of an individual always influence their interpretations of events. When extreme events occure to a human, such as a murder or a rape, everyone in the world no matter where they grew up will precive it as a crime. Though the extent of this crime and the expected punishment for this crime will always vary from one person to the next, but it will be a crime nontheless. The important fact to take note of is that certain events of the human life are always labelled the same by all the humans in the world. When a baby is born, emotions of joy usually erupt from most of the human population. When a genecide happens, emotions of sadness for the dead and anger for the tyrent are usually observed by most of the people in the world. Therefore it can be concluded that the amount of influence conducted by human bias directly depends on the event. If the event is an important event such as birth or murder, then it will be precieved with similar interpretations. However if the event is not as important, then the values and morals of the human will have great impact on the interpretation of that individial. The end some questions: is it ok that I used "I" in the essay? is that a problem as it is with most essays and papers that we do for school? also, I feel like I am being too nerrow minded.. Im not thinking about the bigger picture when it coems to these promts.. do you think that is the case here? Thanks in advanced for your response You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Proficiency in responding to the tasks, though task#3 could be explained in more detail. It is okay to use pronouns such as "I" or "my." Your explanations are fine, and are not too "narrow-minded." In the first example, it may add further credence to your narrative if you were to put something such as "In the summer of 2005, I visited a country in South America/Peru/Brazil, etc." Further, you should mention how, while growing up, you were shaped by Western biases to human events. You should mention how you saw through the eyes of a Westerner, and how exactly a Westerner would see the situation presented. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 -clicked- To be effective, government officials must have completely crime-free pasts. One reason that government is so important in today’s society is that it provides guidelines, or laws, by which its citizens may live. The government and its officials ensure that these laws remain intact and are followed so that order may be kept. Government officials such as political leaders and elected representatives can be equated to law enforcers in an indirect way, as they are responsible for creating the laws and making sure that they are enforced. Since these officials are responsible for creating and maintaining the laws of a particular nation, it follows that they should be expected to uphold these laws in their own lives as much as any other citizen. Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, is a good example of an elected official who has upheld the laws at all times. His success at the polls can be attributed partly to the image that he portrays to Canadians—one of honesty, hard work, and most of all, respect for the laws of his nation. As a leader, it is Prime Minister Harper’s responsibility to uphold the laws just as any citizen would, as it provides a good example for fellow Canadians. It is for this reason that Stephen Harper is rarely questioned in his ethics—he conducts himself according to the law and as such, is respected by his people. Although it is an elected official’s responsibility to maintain the law at all times, there are exceptions. Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has openly admitted to using cocaine, an illegal stimulant, in the past. Despite the electorate’s knowledge of this blatantly illegal activity, he was still elected as President and is very much respected by his nation for his morality and his ethical conduct. Barack Obama is an example of a political leader who has not always obeyed the laws of his nation but is still an effective leader. The fine line between these two leaders may lie in the fact that President Obama did not participate in illegal drug use during his time as an elected official. Although criminal activity is not excusable at any time, it can be argued that a politician should only be held accountable for his actions during the time of his leadership. Government officials should be responsible for their actions, but only when these actions are representative of the leader as a leader, and not as a person. The quality of a leader should not be judged on past mistakes, but rather on his ability to uphold his duties to the law as a responsible leader. President Obama is a fine example of a fit leader who has completely upheld his duties to the law as a President, which is all that anyone can ask. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. The tasks are adequately addressed except for task#3. A grader may take issue with your chosen critera for the task: Discuss what you believe determines when a criminal past would not interfere with a government official’s effectiveness. The crime occuring in the past is already a given, and should not be used for the determining factor in task#3. You should instead argue along other lines such as: "the crime has not caused permanent damage to the official's abilities to lead, or the crime was relatively harmless, in that it was not done out of malice to harm others, and therefore his moral centre is still intact, etc..." I also encourage you to use official and current AAMC prompts from their website: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMN/OPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 --clicked-- Politicians too often base their decisions on what will please the voters, not on what is best for the country. In a democratic society, their constituents vote politicians into power. Thus, it is of no surprise that during election time, candidates strive to introduce, reinforce, or dismantle policies that may or may not please their voters in order to gain their support. A prime example of this occurred during Steven Harper’s run to be Prime Minister of Canada. Since its original enactment by Brian Mulroney, the GST has caused much disapproval among Canadians. Even Jean Chretien had tried to remove it during his time as Prime Minister- but without success. Capitalzing on this mass displeasement of the GST, during his campaign, Harper vowed to reduce the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from its original 7% to 6% and then eventually to 5%. This found favour amongst the majority of the Canadians and as a result, Harper was granted the privilege of being Prime Minister of Canada. However, despite pleasing the nation, his reduction of the GST had devastating effects on the Canadian budget. Economists have calculated that as a result of the GST cuts, Canada’s debt has risen by 10 billion to 50 billion dollars. This is a huge debt for the country, one that has still yet to be reconciled for. As can be seen clearly in this example, politicians who endeavor to please their voters may end up damaging the country. In contrast, there are times in which politicans put the welfare of their country above the desires of their voters. These politicans realize the greater good and the long term benefits to come for the country, as opposed to the immediate benefit of pleasing their constituents. A great example of this occurred just recenetly with the Conservative government introducing the “back to work bill” for Canada post workers. Canada post employees have been struggling to come to an agreement with its employer on a new set of guidelines regarding their wages and pension. Despite several talks, the union and Canada Post have not come to an agreement. As a result, its employees went on strike. Mail was no longer delievered and many businesses suffered because of it. There have been cases in which businesses even had to lay off workers because businesses were unable to get any income themselves due to the postal strike. The Conservative government recognized this situation as a catalyst to what could possibly lead to another economic recession and acted quickly. They introduced the “back to work bill” which caused much frustration amongst Canadians, especially Canada Post employees. The main reason for this is because the bill itself offered less than what the employees were asking for. In addition, employees argued that their freedom as workers and as union members were being curbed. Although this bill has still yet to be passed, its delay due to the opposition from the NDP party, it can clearly be seen that there are times when politicans look at the greater welfare of the country rather than only what pleases their voters. What determines whether politicans should prioritize the voters above the welfare of the country or vice versa, is dependent on the type and extent of consequences that will result. If the consequence is not immediate and can be reconciled for in the future, then pleasing voters over the welfare of the country may be plausible. In regards to Harper cutting the GST from 7% to 5%, although he placed Canada into 10 billion dollars more of national debt, this debt can be reconciled for in the future, as the Harper government is now doing. Its effects do not directly and immediately harm the nation of Canada and as such, pleasing the voters by reducing the GST brings more benefits than harm. However, if the consequence is immediate and devastating, such as a potential economic recession amidst all the economic turmoil occurring around the world already (European debt crisis), putting the country first above voters is more beneficial. This can be seen when the Conservative government introduced the “back to work bill,” despite huge outcry by Canadians, in order to protect the economy of Canada. It is a fine line that politicans walk on, pleasing voters or looking after the country, but it is these cruicial decisions that policians make, that will determine whether they are successful or not. thanks alot pasta! love the feedback You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Some essay readers may take issue with the example used in task#2. A lot of Canadians did not receive their mail, and some Canadian businesses were harmed from the strike. It follows that a lot of Canadian voters would likely be in favour of the "back to work bill." There are far more Canadians voters who want postal services to resume than the number of CanadaPost employees and union members. It can therefore be construed that the greater majority of voters would be interested in sending the postal workers to work, which is in line with the best interests of the country. If you were to use this example on the MCAT, you will have to be very careful how you argue your points. It may be best to choose another example altogether. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mangos Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 --clicked-- Great leaders are born, not made. Throughout history, several leaders have emerged who have revolutionized the world and made it the way it is now. These leaders either bring benefits or harm to humanity, but it can be safely argued that there are two types of leaders- leaders that are born, and leaders that are made. Leaders that are born have innate leadership qualities that cannot or were not developed through external means such as education. A great example of a natural born leader is George Washington. Washington only received formal education up until the age of 15. However, despite what he admits as a “defective education,” Washington had innate leadership qualities that allowed him to be arguably one of the best leaders the world has had. He became the first president of the United States and still remains the only president ever to have 100% of the electoral vote. As Commander in Chief, Washington led America to its victory against Britain in the American Revolutionary War and even aided in the development of the Constitution of the United States. As can be seen, as the leader of the United States, Washington achieved great success. This success, however, is attributed to his innate leadership qualities as opposed to his education. In contrast, there are leaders that are made and not born. Instead, these individuals develop leadership qualities through the education they receive. This education acts to equip them with the necessary tools to become a leader. A great example of a leader that is made is Martin Luther King. King, underwent extensive educational training to mold him into the leader he was. In addition to his primary education, King received training from the University of Pensylavannia, Boston, as well as the prestigious Harvard University. This examplorary education laid the foundation for him to become one of the most well spoken, influential leaders. As can be seen, King’s success as a leader is not attributed to his innate leadership qualities, but rather, through the training he acquired, molding him into leader that would change the world’s view on racial segregation. As discussed above, there are two types of leaders- those that are born with innate leadership qualities and those that gain leadership qualities through training via education. What determines whether leaders are born or made depend on the society in which they were raised. Washington was raised in a society in which schooling wasn’t as prominent and available as King’s era and thus, was primarily conducted privately at home. However, at the age of 15, upon the death of his father, who was also his teacher, Washington’s education ended. As such, Washington’s ability to be such a strong leader for the United States did not develop from educational training, but was instead, innate. On the opposite spectrum of the scale, King was raised in a society dominated by a high value placed upon education. As a result, King was encouraged and blessed to be able to attend several prestigious schools, training him to become an influential leader. However, it can be said that whether leaders are born or made, the ultimate goal of a leader is to create change. This can clearly be seen in George Washington and Martin Luther King. thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 --clicked--- In the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. Describe a specific situation in which it might be possible to be objective in the recording of history. Discuss what you think determines when objectivity in the recording of history is possible and when it is not. When recording history, we aim to give the unfiltered truth of what has occurred. By giving the most accurate description of what has happened, without any of our analysis, we are not being objective in our accounts of history. History is indeed synonymous with the truth, and the truth is not objective - it has no inherent biases when recording. Thus, when the recording of history, it is impossible to be objective. One example in history was during 1600 B.C., where the the Chuktulu had recorded the history of a war between two neigbouring tribes. The Chuktulu had declared itself to be a neutral party when war had begun between the Quatunua and the Chronluki tribes in what is now modern day Mexico. Through various pictures displayed in the caves of the Chuktulu, the people of this tribe were able to give an accurate account of the war, without giving any inherent biases. Many people of this tribe did not have any family nor friends in both of the tribes at War, and so they were able to give an accurate rendition of the outcome of the war. As a result, their depictions of the war as history are considered unobjective as they merely described the events which ensued, and did no base their perspectives on either one of the tribes at war. There are instances; however, when the recording of history remains objective. Often times when a country gives an account of an event, there are some inherent biases or opinions which affect the way the history is told. For many citizens in a country, these stories or accounts of history are a source of national pride, which help depict patriotism and dedication to their country. For instance, during the war of 1500 between the Persians and the Spartans, it has been recognize that the war had lead to a stalemate, with equal casualties lost on each side. Both nations in the end, had to withdraw their forces from the battle. Yet, generation after generation, the Persians tell the story of how this was a great triumphant victory for the Persians over the Spartans. This example demonstrates that sometimes it is possible to be objective when giving an account of history. What determines whether or not the recording of history is objective or not, depends on who is recording and giving the perspective. In the instance of the tribe of Chuktulu, who remained neutral during the great war of 1600 B.C., there were no alterior motives at play when presenting and recording the history of two neighbouring tribes. However, during the war of 1500's between the Persian's and Spartans, the Persians depict this war to be a triumphant victory because this is a story which they are proud of, and can show patriotism and or pride of their country. --clicked-- Creative inspiration, rather than careful planning, often results in the best solution to a problem. Describe a specific situation in which careful planning might result in the best solution to a problem. Discuss what you think determines whether creative inspiration or careful planning can best solve a problem. The use of the human mind has been marveled for its astonishing ability to be novel and creative. This remarkable ability to generate new ideas and thought has allowed many societies to progress to their modern form. Implicit in this statement is the notion that creative inspiration often results as the best possible solution for a given problem. Creative inspiration as an approach is one which utilizes the human's ability to generate and apply novel methods of solving a problem. For instance, in the medical field, since the 1950's, there emerged a disease which doctors, researchers, and health care practitioners had not previously seen, known as HIV. This disease was remarkably different than any disease which health care providers had not seen previously, and could not be treated or maintained with medicines used to treat current diseases. The HIV dilemma demanded that doctors and health care practitioners creatively devise a solution, which could adequately solve the rising problem of HIV. In response to the growing problem of HIV, researchers and doctors began studying the virus, and quickly developed a treatment which they thought could help curb the effects of this disease. They created a reverse-transcriptase inhibitor, a novel drug, never before seen in the medical field, which they thought would prevent the onset of the disease. There was no testing and screening of this drug, and it was immediately used to treat patients with HIV. Lo and behold, this drug was proved to be a potent, as it effectively prevented individuals from experiencing drops in their T4 titres, and is currently used in the management of symptoms today. This marks the fact that creative inspiration is necessary in generating the best solution to a problem. There are instances; however, where creative thought is not the best in generating solutions to a given problem. In contrast to creative inspiration, calculated planning is more of a meticulous and calculated approach, which makes use of a plan and often previous data to solve a problem. During the 1980's, the Canadian economy was hit hard, and this ultimately led to a subsequent recession. In response to this, the Prime Minister, George Laroche, passed into legislation a long term economic policy to deal with the recession. He had noted that the recession encountered by Canada at the time was similar to the one that was experienced by the Japanese, during the 1960's, and through these parallels, he made calculated decisions, which were implemented into his policy. Over the next four years, there would be monetary of injections into the Canadian policy, which would occur at rates of 5%, 6%, 7% and 8%. Laroche was very successful in bringing the Canadian economy out of the recession, and he is best know for his ability to approach a problem analytically, and devise a long term solution. This instance marks a situation in which calculated planning may be the best solution to a problem. Thus creative inspiration often results in the best solution to a problem depends on whether or not the problem is analogous to situations previously seen in history. In the case of HIV, the medical community was dealing with a disease that they had never seen before, and that had no similarities to current known diseases. This demanded a creative approach in response to the problem, which resulted in the best solution. On the other hand, if the problem draws parallels to those previously encountered in history, then a calculated approach may be the best solution to the problem. As seen in the case of the recession of 1980's, Laroche was able to pull the Canadian economy out of the slumps due a long term, planned, economic policy which drew on parallels to those experienced by Japan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 --clicked--- An understanding of the past is necessary for solving the problems of the present. History is an integrable part of our society and has become a foundation in which humanity has looked upon to solve problems of the present. Even in our daily life, we are taught to look at our past mistakes to learn how to improve in the future. Therefore, it is of no surprise that throughout humanity, many leaders have used their understanding of the past to solve problems of the present. Martin Luther King is an excellent example of this. King, a civil rights activist and leader, employed Ghandi’s philosophy of achieving goals through non-violent means. Having understood the past and realized how successful Ghandi’s techniques were in ultimately achieveing India’s independence through acts of civil disobedience as opposed to violence, King also advocated and employed this technique during his fight against black inequality and segregation. An iconic example of this are the events leading up to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in which a black woman, Rosa Parks, a supporter of King, refused to give up her seat to a white man in an act of civil disobedience- not violence. This event sparked the civil rights movement, led by King, and eventually, led to the end of black inequality and racial segregation. As can be seen, King’s understanding of Ghandi’s successful actions in the past, inspired him to follow Ghandi’s footsteps which ultimately led to him being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his fight to end racial segregation. However, there are times when understanding the past does not help solve present day situations. When the current situation is vastly different past situations, employing previously used strategies only leads to failure. This can clearly be seen in the fight against the AIDS pandemic. AIDS, a worldwide pandemic, is a disease that targets and destroys the immune system of humans, leading to their death. This AIDS virus is nothing that medical researchers have seen before and thus, looking into the past will not help. In fact, looking into the past may even perpetuate the problem, as it is a result of past sexual practices, and even ongoing ones, that have led to rapid spread of AIDS. As can be seen, because this virus is so adaptive and different from viruses previously known, looking into the past offers no aid. Thus, researchers and scientists must rely on new technology and present day knowledge to find a cure. So then, when does society, or even individuals, rely on history to solve present day problems? This depends entirely on whether the situation in the past is relevant to the current situation. In the case of King and his fight for racial equality, his understanding of the Ghandi, who similarly also fought for the rights of his people, allowed King to be successful. Both Ghandi’s situation and King’s present situation had common threads, and as such, King’s employment of Ghandi’s philosophy aided him to achieve his goal. However, in contrast, AIDS is a disease that is one of a kind. Nothing like it has ever occurred in the past, so as a result, strategies used to combat viruses previously are of no use currently. Instead of looking at history, scientists must now develop new strategies of their own, in attempts to find a cure to stop this world wide pandemic. much appreciated as always You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity, depth, and complexity of thought. Paragraph#1 is a little disorganized. Try to have your ideas progress in a logical way. This may mean writing about Gandhi first, then introduce key figures in the Civil Rights Movement, beginning with the background, and how the events unfolded. It is also important to do so since you make references back and forth between two people. Also, remember to include "Jr." in Martin Luther King Jr., and to refer to Gandhi as Mohandas Gandhi when you first introduce him. I know who you are referring to, as will the AAMC grader, however, it is customary, but further to that, it shows you are familiar with his story, and also for fairness, since you introduced King, and Parks with their first names. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you! There are times when an individual's private acts should become a public concern. Describe a specific situation in which an individual's private acts should not become a public concern. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the acts of an individual should become a public concern. In the modern society, the issues around privacy of individual members are treated importantly, as evident in privacy laws set up in many nations. Privacy includes personal information and daily activities of an individual. The privacy laws are generally established to secure the privacy of each member of the society. However, there are times when an individual’s daily actions need to be publicly monitored. Criminals with severe crimes, such as sexual assault, should be a common concern in the neighbourhood and need to be constantly monitored to prevent any potential damage to the community. For example, Canada has implemented Sex offender registry to protect each community from sex offenders. This registry contains and releases a list of sex offenders with their address to neighbours and encourages the neighbours to observe the offenders closely to effectively prevent any potential harm that could be done to the community. Therefore, an individual’s daily motions should become a public concern when the individual is deemed to be potentially harmful to the society. In contrast, an individual’s daily actions should not be a daily spotlight, if the individual does not cause any harm or damage to the community. Nowadays, there are many homosexual people in the neighbourhood. Some people have argued that the homosexual people can adversely affect the neighbourhood and should forbid gay marriages. However, unless these homosexual people have a history of crimes, they do not physically cause harm to any communities. Their sexuality plays no role in damaging the society and therefore should not be a public concern. In fact, their rights have been established in several nations, as evident in allowance of same-sex marriage in Canada. Pierre Trudeau once said “Government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. Individual’s privacy rights need to be respected and should not become a public concern when the individual does not cause any harm to the society. The privacy of each member of the society is a complex issue. If an individual has a history of severe crimes, such as sexual assault, the person needs to be constantly monitored by the neighbourhood to prevent any potential damages. On the other hand, if an individual does not pose any harm to the community, the individual’s rights to enjoy privacy need to be secured. For example, though homosexual people have different sexuality from traditional measures, they do not damage the society and therefore their privacy needs to be respected. Ultimately, whether or not daily actions of an individual should be monitored is determined by the measure of physical harmfulness to the society. As depicted here, there are times when an individual should be monitored publicly but there are times when the opposite should occur as well. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 ---clicked--- (sweet initiative, thanks for showing me that) The best of kind of education encourages students to question authority. The aim of education is to provide students with knowledge and understanding of a given subject. The knowledge presents the subject's fundamental theorems and builds upon them to the necessary extent. Understanding is then tested by manipulating the material as taught, and assessing the students' ability to correctly apply knowledge. The best kind of education is one that gives students the freedom to pick apart a unified body of knowledge as it taught, such that understanding is fostered every step of the way and not only at the time of evaluation. But this freedom needs to be checked when the knowledge being presented is necessary for the students to initially grasp the system of ideas. Consider a fundamental mathematical theorem; for the students to understand and manipulate a family of functions, the theorem needs to be taught and adhered to. Even if advanced study will later allow for the theorem to questioned, it still has to be strictly taught first before any further understanding is possible. Thus, the extent to which the subject matter is grounded determines whether the education should give freedom to question authority or restrict it. All central theorems need to stay central because they lead into knowledge and understanding of everything else in the field of study. But the successive outworkings of those fundamental theorems can be questioned, especially the newer ones on the advancing frontier. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Some control of language is evident. Problems with integration and coherence. Major ideas are undeveloped. Demonstrates difficulty in responding to the tasks. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 ---clicked--- Violence is never a real solution to a political crisis. Politics, by its nature, is a system that sees much change in response to various factors from economic performance to public approval. When violence is employed to solve a political crisis, politics and human nature combine to sow seeds of revenge and future discord despite what change may come. This cycle of violence continues to ravage generations and hurts both sides of a conflict because victories are not always permanent and the vanquished may rise again. For this reason, violence doesn't solve a political crisis and should be avoided. However there are some scenarios in which violence is a solution to political strife. Consider a nation where an armed minority uses violent means to bring their political views into the mainstream and force it upon the majority. In this instance where violence was initiated by the minority, leaving no room for peaceful negotiation, a violent response is necessary to protect the majority, their rights and their political views. Peaceful responses do not best serve the majority here, because the minority agenda moves forward mainly by violence. Therefore, violence is a real solution only when it protects the interests of the majority and is used in response to violence. Violence against a political minority is not justified until that minority uses it first. And violence against a political majority is ill-advised because the power is removed from the hands of the people and the bitter cycle of violence is inevitable. Violence is rarely a justifiable solution to a political crisis and when it is, it hinges upon the size and aggression of the dissidents. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. It would be helpful to illustrate your ideas in paragraph #1 with an example. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asta Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Evidence of some clarity and depth of thought. Ideas are somewhat developed. The ideas in the final paragraph may provide a bit of an imbalance to the essay. It makes the essay one-sided in favour of the prompt. This serves to weaken the essay overall as it detracts from the purpose of the essay. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Thanks for the feedback Pasta! I am a little confused about this essay, because I have received contradictory feedback. My MCAT prep instructor felt that this would score a Q+ and that it represents my best work yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asta Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 -Clicked- (Thanks again) Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers’ weakness. Just like the natural world, the world of business is governed by Darwinian processes. Businesses can be seen as predators and the consumer as prey. Only the best adapted predators will succeed. In this way, businesses ensure their survival by targeting consumer weakness. This view of business describes a zero-sum relationship. In this zero-sum relationship, the business profits while the consumer is harmed. A classic example of a predatory business would be Phillip Morris, of the tobacco industry. This company sells cigarettes and other tobacco products. It is widely know that tobacco products cause numerous serious health issues and are highly addictive. Phillip Morris is a very profitable company that owes it's success to a terrible consumer weakness, tobacco addiction. Indeed, Phillip Morris and tobacco companies in general profiteer by targeting and utilizing consumer weaknesses. Fortunately, the world of business is not only built upon zero-sum relationships. Not all business relationships flourish at the expense of the consumer. In fact, some businesses are based upon encouraging a customer's strength. A relationship in which both parties benefit can be described as a non-zero relationship. For example, Hazelden Press is a publishing company that specializing in printing addiction recovery and meditation books. These products are very cheaply priced and readily available. Hazelden is a very successful company that produces and distributes a large volume of material. Hazelden Press has succeeded because it utilizes and enhances consumers' strengths rather than weaknesses. Clearly, businesses can flourish by taking advantage of consumers weaknesses; however, a successful business can also be based upon consumer strengths. Indeed, it is apparent that the nature of the product that the business deals in determines whether or not the business operates by taking advantage of consumer weakness. Tobacco products are harmful and addictive. Due to the harmful nature of this product, businesses that deal in this product, such as Phillip Morris, succeed through taking advantage of consumer weakness. Conversely, recovery literature is a helpful product and businesses that deal in this product, such as Hazelden Press, find success without taking advantage of the customer. Survival of the fittest dictates that only the most successful companies will last. Companies can find success through zero-sum tactics such as targeting customer weakness. Alternatively, businesses survive by utilizing non-zero business models that foster consumer's strengths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scubagirl Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -clicked- Wealthy politicans cannot offer fair representation to all the people. As a general historical trend, the best political leaders are the ones who represent the people in the truest way possible: by sharing their hardships, suffering in their pains, and rejoicing in their triumphs. It is important for a politician to be able to understand the situation his people face because from this understanding he can offer fair representation to the people by making decisions the people themselves would make, which is the defining factor of an effective democratic leader. From this generalization, it can be argued that politicians who are wealthy may have difficulty representing the majority of their people because the majority are, unfortunately, not wealthy. Without an innate understanding of the needs of a large number of his or her constituents, it is likely that the leader will fail in their political endeavors. It is for this reason that each citizen’s vote, regardless of his or her income, is given the same weight at the polls, so as to eliminate the chances of this happening. Politicians who are less wealthy, like the majority, often have more support from their people and are, as a result more effective leaders because they are able to offer fair representation to their people. For example, during the Russian Revolution of the early twentieth century, an ordinary citizen of little wealth or political standing rose to power in one of the most popular leaderships the country has seen to date. Vladimir Lenin was beloved by the oppressed Russians because he too was oppressed and he felt the hardships that his fellow citizens also faced. The Russian Royal family, the Romanovs, did not survive the revolution because of their complete removal from the suffering of their people. There are exceptions to this rule, however, especially in the United States, where money and education come hand in hand, and uneducated political representatives are few and far in between. The former President of the United States, George Bush is a great example of a person of wealth leading a nation successfully and with the support of the majority. George Bush was born into a wealthy family and attended an Ivy League school, unlike the majority of Americans. Despite his wealth, George Bush was able to lead fairly and represent the majority of Americans, perhaps because he was highly educated. What, then, determines if a nation is better led by a poor, but courageous comrade or a wealthy American aristocrat? Both the time period and the leader’s level of education come into play. In the modern world, political leaders are expected to be educated at the highest level in order to afford their people the best decision making and fairest representation. Unfortunately, in most nations, education does not come without a price. This creates a paradox of sorts in that today’s leaders come mostly from at least a minimal amount of wealth, which is not representative of the majority. Education, however, enables these wealthy politicians to make informed decisions for both the wealthy and the poor, and so a compromise can be struck between these two opposing ideologies, resulting in a fair representation for all. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan19 Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 --clicked--- thanks, I really appreciate someone marking these essays Persons who have political power should exercise that power to benefit others, not themselves. Describe a specific situation in which it might be justifiable to exercise political power for personal benefit. Discuss what you think determines when it is appropriate to exercise political power for personal benefit. "With great power, comes great responsibility." In today's modern society, great leaders are marked by their ability to act altruistically - and make decisions which benefit majority of the population. As such, their political power - their ability to influence governmental policy and laws should reflect the interest of the people, that the individual is serving, and should not be for personal gains. For example, Stephen Harper, a Prime Minister of Canada serving from 1990-1998 was heralded as "one of the greats" by the people - as he made sweeping changes to the government policy, which represent the will of many Canadian citizens. Using his political power, Harper was able to act in a way in which many Canadians benefited, as he made reforms in the education system, and was able to implement a foreign policy which removed domestic companies from direct competition with foreign companies. During his time in office, many people recognized him as a great leader, because he served as a selfless leader, who acted in a manner which best served the Canadian citizens at the time. There are instances; however, where it may be justifiable to use political power in a non-altruistic manner, which serves our personal interest. Being in a position of power may allow an individual to achieve personal goals that may not be otherwise attainable. For instance, Mary Fledgings, a mother of two was the mayor of Barrie during 1992-1994. She decided to run as the Mayor for Barrie because she wanted to make changes in the town policy, which would put in jail those who were guilty of drunk driving accidents. As her son had been a victim in a drunk driving accident, she felt compelled to rise to power in her town, and use her personal experience and power to make changes in the town legislation such that the perpetrators who had killed her son would be punished, and served time in jail. The perpertrators served as an example of what could happened and help to prevent further accidents of drunk driving from occuring. Although others directly benefited as a result of her policies, it should be noted that the use of her political power was motivated by personal reasons. Thus, in excercising her political power to make changes in the town policy of Barrie, she demonstrates an instance where it is justifiable to excercise political power to confer a personal benefit. Therefore whehter or not it is appropriate to excercise political power for personal benefit depends on the consequences of the action, and how it ultimately benefits others in society. Stephen Harper's use of power, on the other hand demonstrates the responsible use of power, which best served the interest of others in society. As seen in the case of Mary Fledgings, although the political power bestowed upon her was used for personal benefit - to seek retribution from those who had killed her son in a drunk driving accident. Her changes in legislation also helped others in society in the process, by reducing the number of drunk driving accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -Clicked- The law offers greater protection to the wealthy than to the poor. Laws function to protect the rights of individuals by imposing restrictions on the actions of others. Ideally, they are meant to ensure equality with reagrds to safety and liberty for all citizens. There are several forms of laws such as property law, family law, corporate law, criminal law etc. Additionally, such laws can function at various different levels including municipal, provincial, national and international. Laws tend to be created by keeping the viewpoints of the majority in mind and their goal is to treat all citizens as being equal. However, many beleive that law tends to offer greater protection for the wealthy in comparison to the poor. For example, laws in several nations promote greater security and protection for the wealthy including successful entrepreneurs, celebrities, famous athletes and politicians. In 2009, the G20 summit was held in Toronto where political leaders from the top nations around the world gathered to discuss issues such as global economics and the recent recession. The police force from the City of Toronto and the neighbouring cities and towns was called on the job to help ensure the safety and protection of these high class and wealthy politicians. On the other hand, other events held in the City of Toronto such the Canadian National Exhibition (CNE) which is an annual public event that members of society can attend by paying fee for an entrance ticket do not see this form of a police presence and the extensive use of the legal system to ensure protection of those in attendance. This example illustrates how the legal system and the police force was used to ensure greater protection for the wealthy politicians attendiing the G20 summit whereas, other events where the general public (not necessarily the wealthy) are likely to attend, this form of use of the legal system and the police force is not seen. In contrast, it is not always necessarily true that the law provides greater protection to the wealthy than to the poor. Laws fundamentally pose restrictions on the actions of individuals so that that rights and freedoms for all individuals of society can be protected. For example, traffic laws in Canada prohibit individuals to drive a vehicle while being under the influence of alcohol. This helps to ensure safety for the driver him/herself, passengers, other drivers on the road, pedestrians, cyclists and public transport vehicles. Such traffic laws apply equally to the wealthy and to the poor. Any driver is prohibited from being in control of a vehicle while being intoxicated regardless of how wealthy he/she is or how expensive their car is. All indiviuals are equally fined and punished if they break this law. Moreover, these laws help to promote protection for all other citizens including the wealthy who may also be driving on the roads in expensive cars as well as the poor who may be using other forms of transportation such as walking, bicycles and public transport. In conclusion, laws ar socially constructed rules and regulations that are designed for the benefit of the society as a whole. As such, they are supposed to ensure the safety and well-being of all citizens. However, the law might be used to ensure greater safety and protection of the wealthy when compared to the poor. This is especially true in cases where a large group of wealthy individuals are likely to gather and there is a reason to suspect a threat to their safety. This was clearly seen in the example of events held in the City of Toronto where the legal system and the police force was used to ensure greater protection for the wealthy politicians attendiing an event such as the G20 summit whereas, other events in Toronto such as the Canadian National Exhibition where the general public (not necessarily the wealthy) are likely to attend, this form of use of the legal system and the police force is not seen. On the pother hand, laws do not necessarily promote greater protection of the wealthy and not the poor. This is especially true when laws imply equal restrictions on the actions of all individuals in society. For example, traffic laws in Canada prohibit individuals from driving a vehicle if they are under the influence of alcohol. In this situation, anyones’ lives and well-being can be potentially harmed by careless behaviour of a drunk driver. Thus, such laws apply equally to all citizens of society regardless of whether they are rich or poor and these laws are designed to ensure further safety and protection of all fellow citizens who have an equal right to share the roads regardless of their socioeconomic status. Thanks! Your welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. I encourage you to use current prompts from the AAMC website: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html It would be helpful in being a little more explicit with task#3. "Perhaps, come out with: Whether laws favourably protect the rich or the poor is highly dependent on the nature of the laws themselves. When laws have been designed to preserve public order for high profile officials to conduct political discussions peacefully, it can be seen that the laws protect the rich. Yet, when considering laws that have been created to preserve the safety of the public in general, as in the case of traffic laws, neither the rich nor the poor receive any additional protection under the law." Further, not knowing exactly what is required of task#2, since the prompt is not listed as one of the current and official AAMC prompts, I cannot accurately determine if the example you have mentioned in task#2 is sufficient. Does the task require an example where the law protects the poor, or where there is no favouritism in this protection? Therefore, I feel this essay will be scored between an: JKLMNOPQRST and a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacemaker Posted June 28, 2011 Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Your welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. I encourage you to use current prompts from the AAMC website: https://www.aamc.org/students/applying/mcat/preparing/85192/preparing_writingsampleitems.html It would be helpful in being a little more explicit with task#3. "Perhaps, come out with: Whether laws favourably protect the rich or the poor is highly dependent on the nature of the laws themselves. When laws have been designed to preserve public order for high profile officials to conduct political discussions peacefully, it can be seen that the laws protect the rich. Yet, when considering laws that have been created to preserve the safety of the public in general, as in the case of traffic laws, neither the rich nor the poor receive any additional protection under the law." Further, not knowing exactly what is required of task#2, since the prompt is not listed as one of the current and official AAMC prompts, I cannot accurately determine if the example you have mentioned in task#2 is sufficient. Does the task require an example where the law protects the poor, or where there is no favouritism in this protection? Therefore, I feel this essay will be scored between an: JKLMNOPQRST and a: JKLMNOPQRST Thanks PastaInhaler for the feedback and comments! I got this prompt out of the TPR verbal and writing sample review book. It was one that was stated in the book for brainstorming ideas on so it didn't state the exact requirements for the tasks...hence, I was confuse about that too. I will try some from the AAMC website instead. Thanks! Just wondering: I have heard from some people that its important to read the actual questions that are presented with the tasks whereas other people say that the format and requirements for all essays is the same so there is no need to read that part on the actual test.....what should we be doing and why? Please clarify that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 Thanks PastaInhaler for the feedback and comments! I got this prompt out of the TPR verbal and writing sample review book. It was one that was stated in the book for brainstorming ideas on so it didn't state the exact requirements for the tasks...hence, I was confuse about that too. I will try some from the AAMC website instead. Thanks! Just wondering: I have heard from some people that its important to read the actual questions that are presented with the tasks whereas other people say that the format and requirements for all essays is the same so there is no need to read that part on the actual test.....what should we be doing and why? Please clarify that. You're welcome. It is evident from the range in scores from O to Q that would be assigned to the essay that the instructions are pertinent. Though, for some prompts the instructions are much the same, this is not the case for all prompts. The prompt instructions could change from prompt to prompt varying slightly. This variance in instructions appears for task#2. It is important to read the instructions, particularly for task#2, and it wouldn't hurt to read the instructions for task#3 as it helps you to focus your essay and your thinking by priming your thoughts. It doesn't take much time either, like 10 seconds. So, is it worth saving 10 seconds on the essay while risking misinterpretating a task? You can use the 10 seconds to read the two sentences detailing the instructions as a type of warm up to get your verbal and creative writing "myofibrils" going. You can choose to read the instructions or not -it's upto you. However, I highly recommend that you do for the reasons mentioned. I hope this clears up any confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -Clicked- Thank you! (This essay was written before I started following TPR guidelines.. any comments would be appreciated!) Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies There has been much progress made in technology in the contemporary society. Communication is among one of the technologies that have drastically evolved in recent years. In the modern world, it has become much easier to get in contact with people in remote areas via online media such as E-mail, Skype and Facebook. With Facebook, for example, people can communicate with their friends to whom they have not talked for many years in a simple way: posting on their walls. People can also check how other people are doing via their status on facebook. People may leave messages such as "I am going to Blue Jays game tonight" so their friends or families can keep track of them. Though it seems that the communication in the modern society has become much simpler than in the past, it has also become complicated in its unique way. The privacy issues have become hot issues ever since the birth of Facebook. Because it provides easy access to personal information, abuse of such information has been made possible. Therefore, Facebook has implemented toughened up security system on personal information, which complicates connecting with other people a bit. In the modern onine modern technology, with which personal information can be easily accessible, the progress has complicated as much as it has simplified. On the other hand, progress in offline or non-online methods of communication has been largely more simplifying than complicating. Nowadays, with many people carrying their cell phones, it is possible to get hold of them anywhere any time. People can also get in contact with others overseas as well through affordable and quality international calls, fast international mailing and shipping. Unless they are under surveillance by a national secret service or they are talking in a large public area, their privacy is granted better with these offine methods. No one is going to able to overhear the conversation or open up the envelope to access their personal information. It still is possible to get hold of people with these methods. The progress in these offline communication services has simplifed contacting other people than complicating it. There has been much improvement in the field of communication both online and offline. Though they perform similiar functions, they possess different traits. Both the online and offline media enable people to contact others in a much simpler way compared to the past when people were relying on simple mails delivered via horse riders. To differentiate the two, the online media has complicated the communication in a unique way that personal information delivered through the media can be abused. The offline method, on the other hand, has not posed this problem. The matter of complication and simplification ultimately bogs down to the media type in the field of communication technologies. As depicted here, progress can complicate as much as it simplifies and the opposite can happen as well. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. The essay shows some coherence, but may have issues with organization. It is probably a good idea to focus on one example in task#2, just cell phones or just mailing to keep the essay balanced. What you could do is take that example and examine it further as opposed to having two examples moderately examined. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -Clicked-Thank you again History is the record of humanity's wars. Describe a specific situation in which history might be the record of something other than humanity's wars. Discuss what you think determines when history should be the record of humanity's wars and when it should be something else. History attempts to investigate humanity through the study of past events. When looking through books and publications describing world history, the majority of facts are concentrated on battles and wars. However, historical publications cannot always provide insight into motives, they can only provide records of actions. Wars are resulting actions of countries struggling for dominance over limited resources that ensure human survival. Due to shortage of these resources, attaining them was possible only through means of war. Thus, historical records of wars describe the human drive towards attaining limited assets. One example of this is illustrated by the French and English war that lasted from the beginning of 18th century well into the 19th century. The two dominant European powers sought to defeat each other in order to gain more colonies throughout the world. These colonies would provide each country with various valuable but limited resources such as, land, foods, metals, and manpower. In this war the British Empire came out victorious, while France lost many of its colonies. This period of French-British history has resulted from the struggle between the two empires for resources, but in historical records these events were described in terms of war. However, there are instances where historical publications have focused on events that had nothing to do with wars. For instance, the 20th century has been marked with many great technological advances and discoveries that were shared throughout the world and improved the quality of many human lives. Alex Fleming has discovered penicillin, the first antibiotic, which has been documented by historians as a “discovery that changed the course of history”. After its’ discovery, penicillin was widely distributed and available throughout the world to cure diseases caused by bacterial agents. Since, there was no shortage of this drug no conflicts ensued to possess it. Consequently, the discovery of penicillin was marked in history as a scientific finding and not war. In order to determine when history should be the record of humanity’s wars and when it should be something else one should look at the availability of resources at a given point and time. Wars mark time points when humans struggle for resources that contribute to their survival. However, at times when a resource becomes widely available to everyone, historians can document events that contribute to their discovery and accessibility. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed. The essay shows some coherence and focus. To make the essay stronger, you could illustrate more examples of past wars. It will further support the idea that history is just a record of humanity's wars, and not just one war. The same can be said about the counter-example. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted June 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2011 -clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler! Prisoners should be granted the same rights as the other members of free society. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. Discuss what you think determines whether the rights of free society should be granted to persons in prison. Freedoms and rights in a democratic nation are vital for ensuring equality' date=' safety and welfare of its citizens. When an individual violates the laws and rules of a country, they are susceptible to punishment and imprisonment. Many people argue that prisoners are humans like other members of free society, and consequently deserve many of the same rights. Rights that are absolutely necessary for survival should be granted to all individuals in a nation, whether they are in prison or in free society. For example, similar to members of free society who have access to health care, prisoners should also be entitled to care and physiological wellness. Historically, some of these fundamental rights have been violated. For instance, prisoners in Guatemala were subjected to experimental drugs against syphilis and other transmittable infections. The health of these prisoners was compromised, when the same action towards members of free society would be unacceptable. As a result, prisoners should be granted the same rights as other members of society in matters of health and personal survival needs. Although prisoners are entitled to some of the same rights as other members of society, there are instances when persons might justifiably not be granted a right in prison that they are otherwise granted in free society. While rights that influence the well-being of an individual should be protected both in prison and in free society, prisoners should not be entitled to the same level of freedom to transmit their knowledge and opinions to society. Prisoners should not be granted the right to publicly express their opinions that may be deemed unethical or negatively influential on members of society. In other words, they should not be able to interact with members of free society in order to avoid further transmission of negative feelings or ideas. For example, society should be protected from the prejudices and unethical ideas of the recently imprisoned ex-guard at the Nazi camps in Germany during World War II. As granting such rights would have a negative effect on society altogether, prisoners might justifiably not be entitled to them in prison. Most people agree that rights and freedoms exist by law to protect individuals of a nation. In some instances, prisoners should have the same rights as other members of free society, as in the case of needing health care for survival. These personal needs that do not have an external influence on other members of society should be protected and respected. However, rights that allow members of free society to interact with one another and express opinions and ideas openly should not be granted to prisoners. Such rights would possibly result in transmission of negative thoughts and ideas that may compromise the ethical integrity of society. As a result, personal rights that affect solely the individual without an external influence on other members of free society should be granted, while those that allow prisoners to interact openly with society might justifiably not be granted.[/quote'] You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Adequate control of language. Ideas are somewhat developed -task#2 could use some more explanation. Evidence of some clarity of thought and coherence. I see what you are trying to say in your second example. However, there is weakness in your argument. You presuppose that because a person is an ex-guard at a Nazi camp, that he was either previously spreading hate messages, or that he would do so in prison. You have to establish that he would try to spread such messages while in prison somehow, and not just with inmates, but with society at large. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.